| Literature DB >> 35279219 |
Denis Seyres1,2,3, Alessandra Cabassi4, John J Lambourne5,6,7, Frances Burden5,6,7, Samantha Farrow5,6,7, Harriet McKinney6, Joana Batista6, Carly Kempster6, Maik Pietzner8, Oliver Slingsby9,10, Thong Huy Cao9,10, Paulene A Quinn9,10, Luca Stefanucci6,7,11, Matthew C Sims6,7,12, Karola Rehnstrom6, Claire L Adams13, Amy Frary6, Bekir Ergüener14, Roman Kreuzhuber6,15, Gabriele Mocciaro16, Simona D'Amore17,18,19, Albert Koulman8,20,21,22, Luigi Grassi5,6,7, Julian L Griffin16, Leong Loke Ng9,10, Adrian Park17, David B Savage13, Claudia Langenberg8, Christoph Bock14,23,24, Kate Downes5,6,25, Nicholas J Wareham8, Michael Allison17, Michele Vacca13,16, Paul D W Kirk26,27, Mattia Frontini28,29,30,31.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This work is aimed at improving the understanding of cardiometabolic syndrome pathophysiology and its relationship with thrombosis by generating a multi-omic disease signature. METHODS/Entities:
Keywords: Bariatric surgery; Cardiometabolic syndrome; Classification; Epigenetics; Innate immune cells; Lipids; Lipodystrophy; Metabolites; Multi-omics; Obesity
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35279219 PMCID: PMC8917653 DOI: 10.1186/s13148-022-01257-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Epigenetics ISSN: 1868-7075 Impact factor: 6.551
Descriptive characteristics of the study groups. Average value and standard deviation are indicated
| Blood donors ( | Controls ( | Lipodystrophy ( | Obese ( | Post-surgery ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adiponectin (µg/ml) | 10.1 ± 6.3 | 10.7 ± 3.7 | 3.2 ± 2.3 | 5.9 ± 1.9 | 6.4 ± 2.6 |
| AGE(years) | 57.3 ± 11.1 | 40.7 ± 11 | 45.1 ± 9.6 | 46.3 ± 12.3 | 43 ± 12.6 |
| ALT (U/L) | 34.6 ± 12 | 27.1 ± 7.5 | 56 ± 12.7 | 35.7 ± 9.4 | 36.1 ± 17 |
| AST (U/L) | 25.5 ± 11.1 | 21.8 ± 6.9 | 39 ± 16.8 | 22.6 ± 3.8 | 18.9 ± 6.9 |
| AT-IR | 2.6 ± 2.5 | 1.9 ± 2.5 | 8.4 ± 7 | 7.2 ± 11.2 | 4.8 ± 5.4 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 26.4 ± 4.9 | < 25 | < 25 | 45 ± 5.1 | – |
| BW (kg) | 76 ± 14.9 | – | 73.2 ± 9.7 | 137.9 ± 35.2 | – |
| FFA (µmol/L) | 189.3 ± 132.8 | 156.5 ± 103.3 | 259.6 ± 174.9 | 293.1 ± 164.6 | 232.2 ± 141.5 |
| GLC (mmol/L) | 5.4 ± 1.8 | 4.9 ± 1 | 8.3 ± 3.4 | 5.3 ± 0.6 | 5.3 ± 1.5 |
| HDL-C (mmol/L) | 1.6 ± 0.5 | 1.7 ± 0.4 | 0.8 ± 0.6 | 1.3 ± 0.2 | 1.3 ± 0.2 |
| HOMA-IR | 4.3 ± 4.9 | 2.5 ± 2.2 | 13 ± 10.5 | 7.1 ± 11.3 | 8.6 ± 18.4 |
| hsCRP (mg/L) | 1.9 ± 1.8 | 2.2 ± 1.2 | 2.3 ± 3.3 | 7.4 ± 6.9 | 2.9 ± 5.6 |
| Insulin (pmol/L) | 118.4 ± 117.1 | 76.4 ± 55.6 | 261.7 ± 262.3 | 190.6 ± 276.2 | 178.7 ± 294.3 |
| LAR | 1.8 ± 2.1 | 2 ± 2.1 | 2.3 ± 1.9 | 13.7 ± 6.6 | 5.5 ± 4.5 |
| LDL-C (mmol/L) | 2.9 ± 0.9 | 2.7 ± 0.8 | 1.7 ± 0.5 | 2.4 ± 0.8 | 2.6 ± 1 |
| Leptin (ng/ml) | 14.2 ± 14.7 | 19.8 ± 17.1 | 7.6 ± 7.8 | 74.1 ± 30.4 | 29.9 ± 21 |
| TC (mmol/L) | 5.3 ± 1.1 | 4.9 ± 1 | 4.2 ± 1 | 4.5 ± 0.8 | 4.1 ± 1.4 |
| TG (mmol/L) | 1.6 ± 0.9 | 1.2 ± 0.9 | 5.6 ± 5.5 | 1.9 ± 0.7 | 1 ± 0.4 |
Fig. 1Metabolic signatures in the obese and lipodystrophy groups. a Principal component analysis (PCA) of three groups: obese, green; lipodystrophy, blue; and blood donors (BD), light red. PCA was performed using the parameters below. b Representation of PCA loadings on: age, weight (BW), body mass index (BMI), leptin-adiponectin ratio (LAR), glucose (GLC), triglycerides (TG), total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein (HDL-C), low-density lipoprotein (LDL-C), alanine amino-transferase (ALT), aspartate amino-transferase (AST), Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) and adipose tissue insulin resistance (AT-IR) indexes and high-sensitivity C-reactive Protein (hsCRP). Colour and arrow length scale represent contribution to variance on the first two principal components. c Metabolite module-trait associations using WGCNA consensus analysis and 988 metabolites. Each row corresponds to a module eigen metabolites (ME) and each column to a parameter. Number of metabolites in each module is indicated in brackets. Cell colour represents Pearson’s correlation as shown by legend. Significance is annotated as follows: *p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001; ****p ≤ 0.0001 (Fisher’s test p value corrected for multi-testing). d Heatmap of extreme phenotype groups’ MEs adjacencies in the consensus MEs network. The heatmap is colour-coded by adjacency, yellow indicating high adjacency (positive correlation) and blue low adjacency (negative correlation). e Beeswarm plot using average MEs per cluster presented in (d)
Fig. 2Transcriptional and epigenetic signatures in extreme phenotype groups for three innate immune cell types and platelets. a Schematic overview of the comparisons made in the four different cell types (Monocytes: blue; Neutrophils: green; Macrophages: purple; Platelets: yellow). b, c Barplot showing the number of features significantly different: H3K27ac distribution (ChIP-Seq), gene expression (RNA-Seq) and DNA methylation (RRBS). Each bar is colour coded to represent the different cell types as in (a). b represents results when comparing lean-Control and obese individuals. c represents results when comparing lean-Control individuals and lipodystrophy patients. d Functional GO term annotation of upregulated genes when comparing lean-control versus obese group (top) and lean-control individuals versus lipodystrophy group (bottom), colour coded by cell types as above. The numbers near each dot indicate, from left to right: number of submitted genes, number of genes overlapping with the category and number of genes in the category
Fig. 3Effect of bariatric surgery on transcriptional profile, epigenetic landscape and cell functions. a Body weight (BW) and biochemical values distribution across the four studied groups: obese (dark green); lipodystrophy (blue); blood donors (BD) (light red); and post-bariatric surgery patients (light green). Asterisks indicate result of significance from multiple logistic regression models and conditional multiple logistic regression for obese versus post-surgery comparison. Significance is annotated as follows: *p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001; ****p ≤ 0.0001. b Bar plot shows number of features significantly different when comparing obese individuals before and after bariatric surgery, coloured by cell types. c Volcano plot showing differentially abundant plasma proteins when comparing obese individuals before and after bariatric surgery. Whole blood-specific genes associated with differentially abundant proteins have been annotated. d RNA-Seq expression in the 4 different cell types of highlighted proteins in (c). Asterisks indicate if the gene was differentially expressed in at least one cell type. e Neutrophil ability to attach in the absence of any stimuli after bariatric surgery and it is expressed using the plate reader arbitrary units (RFU). f Adhesion percentage of neutrophils measured in the presence of different pro-inflammatory molecules in obese (dark green) and post-surgery (light green) individuals. Asterisks indicate the result of significance from paired t test. Significance is annotated as follows: *p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01
Fig. 4Different omic layers contribution to NETosis reduction 6 months after bariatric surgery in morbidly obese individuals. Significance is annotated as follows: *p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001; ****p ≤ 0.0001
Fig. 5Multi-omic signature classification of extreme phenotypes. a Presentation of the different layers used for multi-omic integration, the strategy leading to signature identification and schematic view of BD ranking. b Heatmaps showing the mean of the Z-score distribution for each group, for all features selected in each layer. c Plots showing individuals ranked by their predicted probability of belonging to the obese group, using models trained using data from individual layers, as well as a multi-layer predictive model (as indicated by the plot titles). Plots are ordered by decreasing log loss, with smaller values corresponding to better discrimination of individuals in the extreme phenotype group from all other individuals. d Heatmap showing age and sex adjusted association values between (left) eight prioritised lipid species and risk factors measured in the Fenland and present cohorts; and (right) a negative control set of five unselected lipid species and the same risk factors. Black asterisks indicate significant associations after correcting for multitesting
| -2 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Uniq reads (% raw reads) | < 20 | ≥ 20 and < 40 | ≥ 40 and < 60 | ≥ 60 and < 80 | ≥ 80 |
| Encode—NSC | < 0.9 | ≥ 0.9 and < 1 | ≥ 1 and < 1.1 | ≥ 1.1 and < 1.2 | ≥ 1.2 |
| Encode—RSC | < 0.8 | ≥ 0.8 and < 0.9 | ≥ 0.9 and < 1 | ≥ 1 and < 1.1 | ≥ 1.1 |
| Deeptools—AUC | ≥ 0.4 | ≥ 0.3 and < 0.4 | ≥ 0.2 and < 0.3 | ≥ 0.1 and < 0.2 | < 0.1 |
| Deeptools—X-intercept | ≥ 0.3 | ≥ 0.2 and < 0.3 | ≥ 0.15 and < 0.2 | ≥ 0.1 and < 0.15 | < 0.1 |
| Deeptools—Elbow point | < 0.65 | > 0.65 and < 0.75 | > 0.75 and < 0.85 | > 0.85 and < 0.95 | > 0.95 |
| Peak number | < (e-10000) | ≥ (e-10000) and < (e-5000) | ≥ (e-5000) and < (e-2000) | ≥ (e-2000) and < e | ≥ e and < (e + 25,000) |
| Time (minute) | Flow rate (µL/min) | Solvent A (Water + 0.1% FA) | Solvent B (ACN + 0.1% FA) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 0.3 | 97 | 3 |
| 20 | 0.3 | 86 | 14 |
| 30 | 0.3 | 80 | 20 |
| 40 | 0.3 | 75 | 25 |
| 51–52.2 | 0.3 | 69 | 31 |
| 53–53.1 | 0.3 | 65 | 35 |
| 54 | 0.3 | 63 | 37 |
| 55 | 0.3 | 58 | 42 |
| 63 | 0.3 | 31 | 69 |
| 65 | 0.3 | 97 | 3 |
| 80 | 0.3 | 50 | 50 |
| 80.5 | 0.3 | 10 | 90 |
| 82.2–87.5 | 0.3 | 97 | 3 |
| 99.5 | 0.3 | 50 | 50 |
| 101.5 | 0.3 | 10 | 90 |
| 103.5–110 | 0.3 | 97 | 3 |
| CD16 | PE | VEP13 | Miltenyi |
|---|---|---|---|
| CD63 | APC | H5C6 | Miltenyi |
| CD11b | APC | ICRF44 | BD Pharmingen™ |
| CD62L | FITC | Dreg 56 | BD Pharmingen™ |
| CD32 | FITC | FLI8.26 | BD Pharmingen™ |
| CD14 | APC | MφP9 | BD Pharmingen™ |